Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the Defendant of the charges of obstruction of performance of official duties and obstruction of business, and the judgment of the court below which maintained that conclusion, did not err by violating the logical and empirical rules and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the reason that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.